Yes, that exhaustive list is what I keep going back to as well. However...
I still can't help but point out one thing: If
someone in our world system is to become a Sammasambuddha, then, according to the suttas, they will most definitely be a man. So pointing out that it's hard for anyone to attain it doesn't defeat the fact that women can't do it and men can. Obviously
women and those concerned with women's equality will have a problem with this interpretation.
Furthermore, the status of Sammasambuddha-ship in all of world Buddhism further makes this an issue of concern. I mean, I could understand if becoming a teaching Buddha wasn't a big deal. But it is.
And it's considered the utmost goal, especially in Mahayana. Even more reason to question it. And specifically for the Mahayana, women can't
vow to save all beings - because they literally can't save all beings. They have to first hope to be reborn as a male and then make the vow.
C'mon people! Maybe excepting Element, how can anyone in this forum just take this for face value?
There might be an easy answer, but I have to ask this: how is this any different than the Christian viewpoint that women can't become priests or bishops?
But to respond to your response to my post earlier - yes, I am sorry I forgot about the idea that the commentators draw no parallels between kamma manifestation in sex and the inability of women to attain teaching Buddha status. I at least find that comforting. However, they didn't try to tackle this issue - why? I guess because it wasn't an issue at the time. But it is now, and so maybe monks an academics should spend more time on it.
Sure, this idea has no bearing on my actual practice. But it does have bearing on the propagation of the Dhamma to the world and to the discussion of the Dhamma with others. And so we shouldn't just dismiss it as useless. If we actually do want to become teaching Buddhas, then we most definitely won't be able to avoid this discussion. Best get it right when we can.